Complainant Naresh Chander through the present complaint has sought the necessary directions to the opposite parties to repair his vehicle totally at their own costs. Opposite parties be further directed to pay 20% on clam amount for non-settlement of claim within stipulated period, parking charges and estimate of Rs.20,036/-, Rs.6279/- survey fee paid by him and Rs.25,000/- for harassment and mental agony for visiting 3 times to Delhi alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he was the owner of the vehicle Toyota Innova bearing registration no.PB-35-0234 which was insured with the opposite parties vide policy No.401500/31/14/6100008660 for the period from 4.2.2015 to 3.2.2016 as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. On 13.12.2015 the vehicle met with an accident near Karnal in the area of P.S.Madhuban being driven by Sh.Suresh Kumar Driver and at that time two passengers were travelling  and they also got injuries and were shifted to Mediline Hospital, Karnal for first aid and DDR was recorded in the PS.Madhuban and the vehicle was badly damaged in this accident. He intimated the loss to the opposite parties on 14.12.2015 through his servant but the opposite parties did not accept the same and then he sent the intimation through registered post on the same day. The opposite parties intimated him on phone and in writing on 17.12.2015 to shift the vehicle to M/s.Uttam Toyata, Sahibabad U.P. and accordingly he shifted the vehicle to Sahibabad by towing on 16.12.2015 and paid Rs.14,000/- as towing charges. M/s.Uttam Toyata intimated the office of the opposite parties at Gaziabad on 22.12.2015 to depute a surveyor and reminder again 23.12.2015  but the Divisional Office of Gaziabad replied back to approach Regional Office II at New Delhi Regional Office finally M/s.Uppal & Associated were deputed to survey the loss. M/s.Uttam Toyota Surveyor also inspected the vehicle and prepared the estimate of loss and handed over the same to the opposite parties. M/s.Uppal & Associates intimated that he had requisite papers to process the claim but needed a copy of hospital discharge and same was provided by him by personally visited on 7.1.2016 and the surveyor assured him that he would send the survey report to opposite parties soon and he also gave pre-receipt of survey fee bill of Rs.6229/- and the amount of this fee was put in his bank account by RTGS. M/s.Uttam Toyota, Sahibabad was charging Rs.200/- per day for keeping the vehicle in his workshop. He has number of times visited the office of the opposite parties but the opposite parties did not settle his claim within the stipulated period of 30 days and beyond that period it is the liability of the opposite parties to pay demurrage charges. Hence this complaint.

3.         Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written version through its counsel, taking the preliminary objection that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable; the complaint is without any cause of action, hence liable to be dismissed and the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant got an insurance policy No.401500/31/14/6100008660 of his vehicle no.PB-35-M-0234 from the opposite party no.1 with policy period from 4.4.2015 to 3.2.2016. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 13.12.2015 and after receiving intimation from the complainant, the opposite party no.1 deputed M.S.Uppal & Associates New Delhi to assess the loss to the vehicle who submitted his report on 21.01.2016. The IDV value of the vehicle was Rs.6,20,000/-. The salvage value of the vehicle was Rs.3,30,000/- received by the complainant after selling it to Mohammad Fazil of Delhi on 17.03.2016. The opposite party no.1 paid Rs.2,95,729/- to the complainant after deducting Rs.2000/- as excess clause and including Rs.6229/- fee paid by complainant to the surveyor and Rs.1500/- the towing charges as per terms and conditions of the policy. So in this way the opposite party paid full IDV value of the vehicle and Rs.6229/- fee paid by complainant to the surveyor and Rs.1500/- the towing charges as per terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant. So, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation as claimed in this complaint. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit ExC1 along with other documents exhibited as Ex.C2 to Ex C6 and closed the evidence.

5.        Sh.Parveen Chadha Branch Manager of opposite party no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith other documents exhibited as Ex.OP-1,2/2 to  Ex.OP-1,2/5 and closed the evidence.

6.        We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We find that the prime dispute prompted (affidavit Ex.C1) at the delay, inconvenience and harassment caused to the complainant during the course of settlement of his car accident-claim by the OP insurers coupled with an arbitrary repudiation of accidented vehicle’s towing, parking charges along with non-reimbursement of surveyor’s fees as paid by the present complainant.

7.       We observe that the complainant has duly produced his supporting documents as: Ex.C2 – the policy cover; Ex.C3 – Workshop Bill comprising of Labour/Parking charges etc; Ex.C4 – Towing charges of Rs.14,000/-; and Ex.C5 & Ex.C6 – inter-se communication pertaining to the OP’s suo-moto cancellation of insurance of the complainant’s other car without assigning any reason and allegedly as an outcome of professional vendetta etc. 

8.       We further find that the OP insurers have simply produced (in their defense) the affidavit Ex.OP1,2/1 deposing the contents of written statement; Ex.OP1,2/2 – office note cum claim-appraisal; Ex.OP1,2/3 – accident intimation letter; Ex.OP1,2/4 & 5 – insurance certificate and Surveyor’s report assessing claim payment @ total loss basis; but no evidence has been produced on records limiting/capping the claim settlement time-frame and also the OP insurers’ liability towards payment of parking and towing charges etc.

9.       We finally find that the OP insurers’ so-produced defense cannot be construed as the complainant’s having satisfactorily accepted the instant claim settlement (willfully and with free consent) in the light of the complainant’s long term consumer status and thus the OP insurers’ adopted tenacity is set-aside/overruled. We are unreservedly supported in our above ‘ruling’ by the nature and objective of the IRDA’s (Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority of India)’s circular letter # 173 dated 24.09.2015 directing that ….. “… the insurers shall not use the instrument of discharge voucher as a means of estoppel against the aggrieved policy holders when such policy holder approaches judicial fora”. And, that dyes the impugned partial repudiation of the present claim’s collaterals into the ‘hue’ of ‘deficiency in service’ coupled with ‘unfair trade practice’ under the extant provisions of the applicable statute. To sum it up all, we find that the OP insurers have arbitrarily repudiated the insurance claim’s collaterals in question and have since failed to produce any cogent evidence to support the alleged grounds/basis of repudiation and in its absence these shall amount to ‘bald’ statements, only. Thus, the OP insurers’ impugned settlement of the instant insurance claim does not entail legality under the applicable law and need be set-aside.

10.     In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP insurers to settle and pay the balance of the collaterals of the instant accident claim up to the actual amounts paid towards towing and parking charges along with duly receipted reimbursement of the surveyor’s fees to the complainant besides to pay him Rs.10,000/- as cost (of litigation) and compensation (for causing delay & harassment etc) within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA form the date of the orders till actual payment. 

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records. 

                                                                         (Naveen Puri)

                                                                              President.      

ANNOUNCED:                                                      (Jagdeep Kaur)

April, 26 2017.                                                    Member

*MK*